Koenig - Heidrick - Nigris - Ordo Templi Orientis



'Caliphate' Ordo Templi Orientis

William Heidrick
Tyagi Nagasiva
Peter-Robert Koenig

Preview of initiations
Constitution and later revisions/amendments
The E.G.U.
The "Caliphate" E.G.C,
The office of the "Caliph"
The McMurtry "succession"
The "Caliphate" letters
Crowley's pun

An e-mail correspondence between Peter-R. Koenig, Tyagi Nagasiva (Nigris) and William Heidrick, Grand Treasurer General of the "Caliphate" O.T.O., on the subject of O.T.O. disputes

EDITORIAL NOTE: This following three-way exchange which took place between August 19 and September 17, 1996 is valuable because it involves William Heidrick, who in seniority may be reckoned third in the "Caliphate" hierarchy after William Breeze (Hymenaeus Beta) and David Scriven (otherwise known as Frater Sabazius X°). It may be read with profit in conjunction with an e-mail correspondence between P.-R. Koenig and David Scriven. There are some minor editorial adjustments, spelling and stylistic corrections consistent with the collation of the text into a continuous whole, with some contributions and additional commentary/afterwords by Victor Conquest who is separately contactable by non-electronic mail through "the company of heaven" at BM Laylah, London WC1N 3XX, UK.)
Headings in upper case represent titles inserted for editorial purposes. Indentations refer to further discussions on side issues which took place at later dates.
Aleister Crowley Stele of Revealing


PROLOGUE

N: ... [These letters are] sent to Br. Heidrick, whose response I plan to again share with Br. Koenig upon receipt. H: I have minimal interest in Peter having my correspondence -- except that he publishes my stuff without my consent, thus ripping me off. He even has a joke I wrote about him in private email, proudly displayed on his pages with complete obliviousness to the comment that his text is not on a par with "Occult Theocrasy" -- according to a reader of his Home Page who emailed me about it. ... K: Dear Brothers and Sisters, of course, everything that I write may be published: but please improve/correct my poor English!!!!! N: So done. My intervening text removed unless pertinent, though I do follow up on Br. Koenig's words.

PREVIEW OF INITIATIONS

N: What was the reasoning and precise timing (i.e. certain events which brought it on) behind the withdrawal of the privilege of preview of initiation rite oaths? H: It was done a few years ago, with only my vote dissenting in the Areopagus. The principal arguments I recall all went to the issue of secrecy of the initiation rituals.

THE O.T.O. CONSTITUTION AND ITS LATER REVISIONS / AMENDMENTS

N: What is the earliest version of the OTO Constitution, who wrote it, and how was it presumed it could be changed, if at all, by whom, etc.? H: 1906 e.v., by Kellner and Reuss. The 1917 e.v. revised Constitution was mostly done by Reuss.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: On inspection, apart from the ending this "revised" Constitution is word-for-word practically identical to the 2 original 1906 versions. After all, Kellner died in 1905 and most certainly has never heard of the OTO}} H:---It could be amended by edict of the OHO, but there were provisions for cammeral amendment as well. The latter is published in Equinox III,10. The present active form of the Constitution is the OTO International Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws -- which can only be amended tri-cammerally (Areopagus, Supreme Council and OHO all concurring). N: What was the history of the Constitution between its 1917-1919 versions and its 1980's revision? i.e. apparently Crowley or someone else rewrote the thing or amended it from the Kellner/Reuss revisions, no? If so, who was involved? H: Some conceptual problems there. Crowley published glosses and summaries of the 1917 e.v. OTO constitution in the _Blue Equinox_ of 1919 e.v. -- the most obvious being "Intimations...". Other than that, there has been no revision since. The International Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are much like a revision, but amount to a functional attempt to get most of the constitution into practice for the first time. The thing never worked in very well under Reuss and Crowley, while Germer mostly ignored it outside of an occasional remark. To become fully active, the old Constitution requires 2,000 OTO members in a province. There have never been that many in one country. It has a lot of bugs in it, including some provisions that have to be different from country to country according to the law of the land.

THE E.G.U.

N: What is the EGU and what is its relationship to the OTO as you see it? H: I haven't a clue what EGU is. EGC is one part of OTO, mainly responsible for the Gnostic Mass and interfaced to several degrees for ordination and consecration. N: EGU = Eglise Gnostique Universal; obviously French. Br. Koenig appears to consider this a separate org (or to have been such) from the EGC. He notes that Sr. Meral indicates her identity of the two in her CoT texts. The former mentions J.Bricaud in association with this organization, and says that it was originally 'Eglise Gnostique Catholique', so I'm unsure of the pedigree/relation. He does connect it via Bricaud to Reuss, however. Your feedback on this organization and its relation to the EGC would be appreciated. Thanks. H: So that's what EGU means. My Finnish email correspondent couldn't remember. I would still have to see what Phyllis wrote to answer. Possibly that still wouldn't help. This is a very similar name, just in French instead of in Latin. Jean Bricaud is not known for being well connected to Reuss, but is sometimes doubtfully cited as an "Episcopi Vagrantis" [sic!]. Bricaud was consecrated on the 21st of July, 1913 as a bishop of l'Eglise Gallicane by Mgr. Giraud (Louis Giraud, consecrated by Jules Houssay himself on 21st June 1911). Bricaud's bishop name was Tau Jean II. Bricaud consecrated Victor Blanchard later, under the name Tau Targelius. It's a separate line from that of Papus, but related (Papus used the name Tau Vincent, as a bishop). All this was before Papus received a second consecration, which linked to the Utrecht lines. If Jean Bricaud started EGU, only the name is a relation to EGC -- no other direct connection -- indirect, yes, direct, no. At best, cousins by "marriage", several times removed. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Obviously Heidrick has not the slightest historical informations: Reuss and Bricaud very closely worked together: Bricaud even wanted Crowley's Gnostic Mass as the Central Religion for all Freemasons.}}

THE "CALIPHATE" E.G.C.

N: What is the official OTO policy (as you see it) regarding the conditions necessary for the acceptance of such things as postal consecration of bishops, priests, priestesses, etc.? H: Not allowed. Consecrations of bishops and ordinations must be done in proper persona at this time. N: My question was intentionally more broad than this. I wanted to know *under what conditions* such a thing *would* be allowed. I am under the impression (again, from texts by Koenig and memory otherwise) that this was important to the EGC's history, especially as regards its present Patriarch. Please advise, thanks. H: The present Patriarch has such a connection (not exactly that, but similar) in one of the two lines he claims to the Wandering Bishops. Under Grady's line, there is no such intangible linkage, all being by laying on of hands.--- {{APPENDIX: The "Caliphate"-people assume that the so-called "Caliphate"-letters conferred ecclesiastical authority, as well as AA-authority.}} K: Where's the proof for McMurtry having had Crowley's hand somewhere? Crowley was never a Bishop or of comparable status, though I have seen Crowley's 'Charter' for W.B. Crow which makes him Patriarch of Crowley's version of the EGC in 1944.--- N: Br. Koenig makes this statement several times in his paperwork I notice: that Crowley was never a Bishop and so could not consecrate any sort of lineage. Could you explain the specifics of this EGC hands-laying as well as indicate how you came by the knowledge of its accuracy and purity? Is this also your understanding? If so, what difference does it make as regards the 'purity' of the Caliphate OTO's connection to the Gnostic Wandering Bishops? [Editorial note: for response, see below.] K:---Why does a Thelemite need apostolic succession? Only orders and organizations need such a succession in order to have a magical current, or, as in the case of the "Caliphate", to benefit from so-called copyrights. That is, money. The "Caliphate"s OTO connection to the Gnostic Wandering Bishops is only marginal/minimal. If they could not receive it nowadays, from some very very few 'real' Gnostic Bishops outside the Thelemic continuum, they have no 'Gnostic apostolic succession'. It's only in their minds or in their statutes, e.g. linking their Holy Ghost with some Crowley-OTO-initiation rituals. Funny idea: linking a Christian concept with some pseudo-freemasonic rites. And to pretend that this is Thelemic. Does anybody remember the "Gnostic Catholic Church" Scandal of the late 1980s? H: The above section, eclipsed for convenience. [Editorial note: except for the final sentence, the above passage has no longer been eclipsed "for convenience" - i.e., censored - and is restored in full.] Eclipsed version is just empty hostile talk. Although I haven't a clue what or which GCC Scandal he's talking about. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Remarkably odd, considering the matter was given such widespread publicity at the time, including discussion in "The Magical Link" itself.}} H:---Speaking entirely personally, I don't accept that sort of thing and don't expect to change my mind on the point. OTO could change it's rules to accept that sort of thing, but I see no sign of it. [Response from previous question; see above:] H: Standing as a Bishop through OTO is an appendant to the VIIth degree, however Grady was taken into the IXth by Crowley in proper person from the Ist.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: There is no proof that McMurtry was ever taken by Crowley through the degrees from Ist to IXth "in proper person" whatsoever. BTW: Crowley never visited any of the Agape Lodges}} H:---That included the Bishop consecration by the nature of the degree.--- K: PROOF????! I want to see the original statute which rules such. N: Is there such proof of this, Br. Heidrick? Is there something in the Constitution of the Order or some other text which supports this correspondence between gnostic succession and Order initiations? H: I am an officer of OTO and say so regarding the practices over which I have a measure of supervision.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: In other words, I make it up as we go along and as I see fit - i.e., they "do what I say"?}} H:---I am a member and give witness that I was so initiated and so consecrated.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: By McMurtry, whose consecration is itself dubious and from Crowley, whose consecration again is itself dubious! One asks, "so what does this prove"?!}}}} H:---Although these things have recent memorial in the Bylaws,--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Very recent memorial in Bylaws very recently written in 1987...}} H:---this question is a little like asking a duck to prove he's a duck.--- K: This is ridiculous. Shall I quote Gertrude Stein: "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" ...? This is exactly one of the manipulation tricks that I have described in my "Proto-Fascistoid element"-file that I sent you. [to be found in the Scriven/Sabazius correspondence at this URL] H:---I'm unclear about the question regarding gnostic succession. Papus or the ancient Gnostics? No record of most of the actual consecrations as separate consecrations in my hand in either case -- other than Papus himself, of course -- Tau Vincent as noted earlier. Papus was the head of OTO for France, and we have information that he passed it on. It was published as such in Papus' life time by Reuss and Crowley, without Papus' objection to accuracy of that publication. {{APPENDIX, 1997: This is legally interesting: also Heidrick refuses to read Koenig's texts, books and publications. Maybe Heidrick thinks that sticking his head in the sand makes him invulnerable? But this is legally irrelevant. It does not need one's objection to judge any accuracy whatsoever. If someone publishes "Heidrick is a duck" and Heidrick does not object it: does it make Heidrick a duck?}} H: I understand that there may be some additional paper on Crowley's getting it, but I don't have that. I believe Fr. H.B. either does or knows where it may be, but I don't have it. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: This apparent unavailability of items is a familiar refrain coming from the "Caliphate".}} N: I'm not sure I understand this completely, but I'd like to hear your commentary on it, Br. Koenig. K: I have described the situation in my "Stranded Bishop" piece and can only add: a) Yes, Papus was X° of Reuss-OTO in France, but this does NOT AT ALL melt the OTO with that French Gnostic Church which was completely of a Christian nature. b) This manipulative trick from Heidrick would suggest that a person that is a member of two different organisations automatically makes these organisations one single organisation. c) I wonder why Heidrick does not have access to such important papers?! H:---As to the laying on of hands, Grady did what Crowley did to him, so stating.--- K: Where? On which part of McMurtry's body did Crowley lay his hand? H: The same place Grady layed his hands on me. That's all you get -- it was above the waist and below the ceiling. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Why so coy?!}} H:---As to Crowley being a Bishop, this is what he was within OTO.--- K: PROOF?! H:---We only resumed the separate title of Bishop apart from the Degrees in the 1980's. Until then it was a part of the IXth and could be conferred at the VIIth. N: I'd like to see responses to Br. Koenig's questions above. H: Read the Gnostic Mass for the claim, unrefuted by Reuss who translated and published it in German. The word "Bishop" is not used, but the function is asserted. N: Your response, Br. Koenig, would be welcome. K: Well, and the word "concentration camp" also does not appear in that Liber XV but the function is asserted????? [This is] nonsense. I have Crowley's VII° rituals, and they are void of such. Heidrick does not(!) have the VII* Crowley OTO ritual, and therefore this is a projected fantasy. I am looking at the rituals as I write this email and I assure you, they are devoid of anything related to Gnosticism. N: Br. Heidrick, why would Br. Koenig claim to have Crowley-OTO rites which you, ostensibly a/the lineage of Crowley-OTO, do not have? I understand that rites between III° and IX° were fairly recently (re?)constructed by the Caliphate, isn't this true? H: Crowley wrote an outline and partial draft of the VIIth in the final form, although there were earlier rituals. Fr. H.B. elaborated the ritual from that.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: With what qualifications and with what right so to do?}} H:---Initiations Minerval through VIth were completed in Crowley's hand, and those are the ones we have continually used. VIIth through XIth were not completed in final form by Crowley, although some ancillary rituals exist in those degrees, in full. N: Br. Koenig, is this also your understanding? Are the rites you have not "complete in final form" (whatever Br. Heidrick may mean by this)? Until then it was a part of the IXth and could be conferred at the VIIth. K: Heidrick wants to disguise the fact that they changed the rituals because they have been published by King. They changed the passwords and the like and always pretend that King did not publish all of the stuff. Well, King left out some minor things, like the VII°, and I guess two sex-instructions that have been published elsewhere. But in order to remain a "secretive order", that is the members still having to pay for "secrets", they pretend that there are still unpublished documents. And in order to avoid further questions they hint at an ominous "oath" that hinders them from answering. ... N: It appears, Br. Koenig, that Br. Heidrick claims that the degree/Bishop association has *always* existed (esp. as regarding the IX°). Are you saying that it has not? K: Where in the IX° papers is the Bishop connected to the OTO secrets? N: I'm unsure of the significance of the question but would like to hear a response. H: Peter knows damn well--- K: Such language is always very unveiling! H:---that I couldn't answer such a question positive or negative regarding the instructive documents of that degree without breaking my oath.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: A skeptical observer might say: Mightily convenient - considering that (apart from within the "Caliphate" itself) there never WAS any such connection!!}} N: Br. Koenig, given that Br. Heidrick is restricted by his oaths from answering, where do you think that it *might* be so placed? That is, *if* there is a connection between Bishop and the OTO IX° secrets, say someone slipped it in somewhere, then where might it be best placed? K: There is absolutely NO such evidence! It is only in their minds! Or, (nigris), did you find such a place somewhere? Please tell me. H:---As for the rest, denying it doesn't invalidate it on Koenig's side. I state it, as does OTO. Who cares otherwise?--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: More people than you would care to imagine, Mr. Heidrick!}} H:---Talk to David Scriven -- he's been writing the history of the EGC, partly published in _Red Flame #2_. N: I hope you have seen this information, Br. Koenig. K: I am also preparing a large tome on the Gnostic churches.... I have Scriven's booklet and it is completely worthless re: history. But it is a good example of 'sectarian' thinking: bending history into critically-immune self-referentiality which narrows its value. N: Br. Heidrick, are you aware of anyone's text which is broad enough to encompass all perspectives on this matter? Does D. Scriven's text take a particular slant? ... N: Where do you draw evidence for the conclusion that the Gnostic succession was at some point drawn into the initiations of the freemasonic OTO? Did Crowley write initiations where are not now being used by the Caliphate? Was it Crowley (with Reuss-objection) who joined the Gnostic-OTO lines? H: From the rites and usages of the ritual, as well as the instructions for the Gnostic mass and the continuous practice of OTO. Reuss merged the Gnostic Catholic Church with OTO -- it was there when Crowley joined, as noted in the earlier matter in the _Oriflamme_. [It was] since Papus, vid. inf. I don't know when it was made part of the IXth prior to that, but it was under Crowley during the American trip at the time of WWI. That's why Crowley wrote the Gnostic Mass. N: Br. Koenig, comment welcome. K: Please show me ONE SINGLE document! I don't want only Heidrick's pretending and claims! I want a document that PROVES it! ... N: I also got the impression that the apostolic success business was rather Christian of origin, though I'd like to know more.--- H: It is, by and large. That's why it is of little importance to us. However, we have it, so we say so. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: This statement contradicts itself. On the contrary, the fact is of considerable importance to the "Caliphate", as evidenced by Breeze's continued stressing of TWO lines of succession...}} N:---Is this a supposed direct connection to Christ?--- H: No. St. Peter. It does connect to the pre-Christian system of Rome,--- K: PROOF? N: I wondered about that proof too. Making such grandiose claims we might presume to ask for it, though I remember you said it was 'on the order of _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_', or something which implied to me that there is not very much evidence to be found. Is this like the OTO claim of connection to the Templars (i.e. thematic/ symbolic/ unsubstantiated)? H: What OTO claim of connection to the Templars? There's the usual Masonic bit, but that's hardly more than a fable. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Yet the first two sentences of David Scriven (Sabazius X° of the "Caliphate")'s history of the OTO states: "...OTO represents a surfacing and confluence of the divergent streams of esoteric wisdom and knowledge which were originally divided and driven underground by political and religious intolerance during the dark ages. It draws from...the crusading Knights Templars of the middle ages..."}} N: That last was all I meant. I have seen very little proof that the old de Molay Templars survived in any form beyond their burnings except through revival. Where these notions of Baphomet come from, however, continually intrigues me. H: My allusion was to the impossibility of proving such things as a connection between the present Popes and St. Peter -- and the fact of the Papacy using terms and regalia descended from both the Western and Eastern Empire. N: I'm sure this is very important, though I am so ignorant of the history of the Church and its regalia that this doesn't mean very much to me. I tend to agree that most 'historical claims' made by religious are quite often wishes or mythic associations without direct lineage (as the case with 'Jesus Christ', whose historical existence I seriously doubt). H:---but that's a "Holy Blood Holy Grail" kind of issue. N:---If it wanes in and out of the EGC that is associated with Crowley (due to his not having been a Bishop) then what do you mean by 'apostolic succession' here? H: It doesn't waine [sic] in and out, although it isn't particularly important to us. Crowley was a Bishop. N: Br. Koenig, it appears that the Caliphate OTO considers Crowley to have been a Bishop of the church (EGC) with which he was affiliated by virtue of his degree (OHO, X°) in the Order. Are you saying that this is not historically accurate? K: Crowley was not the OHO of the OTO, only OHO of his own breakaway group. N: Given this assertion, I'm unsure of the logic involved in the Germer-Metzger-McMurtry affairs, since it sounds as if Br. Koenig is simultaneously stating that Reuss broke from Crowley and that McMurtry (who did not wish to break from Crowley) was not the successor via Germer in default of Mellinger. [Editorial note: see following discussions on the succession of the "Caliph", etc.] ... N: I gather from reading Br. Koenig's text that H. Beta received (postal?) consecration from Webb to Lully-Bertiaux-Hogg.--- H: There was such an intangible link in that line, but not in the line from McMurtry to Beta. N: Are you aware of this alternative lineage, Br. Koenig, that OTO degrees (esp. IX° early on) conferred bishopric lineage? K: Only in their minds, or perhaps new invented statutes. Nowhere (!) in the original statutes [Bylaws? Constitution?] can one find such somersaults. N: Br. Heidrick, was something 'new' constructed at some point which supports your assertion? N:---Br. Koenig suggests that when this was challenged, HBeta merely changed the 'rules of succession',--- H: No. Didn't happen. N:---,"satisfied that 'Elevation to the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis' *ipso facto* makes one a Bishop and leadership of such a body *ipso facto* makes one a Patriarch." Is this true? Or was there more to it? H: That's all it ever was, within OTO. Receiving the IXth degree includes that rite, by laying on of hands, since Papus's days.--- K: PROOF? Since when does one 'receive' the IXth degree? Knowledge of the 'secrets' was enough in the original days (and paying [fees?] of course). Only when Heidrick found out that the 'secrets' are 'common knowledge' he linked the IX° to the possession of the 'Emblems and Modes of Use' and a paper signed by the "Caliphate". This, seen from the perspective of the original OTO, is nonsense. N: Reuss, I think, passed on the UK Kingship to Crowley on the basis of having printed 'secrets' in his _Book of Lies..._. Why isn't what Br. Koenig saying here accurate? H: Reuss also required Crowley to take high Masonic degree via Yarker before he would admit Crowley to the IXth.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Where is the proof of this? Crowley was _already_ a 33* and a VIIth within Reuss's own masonic system (the OTO) at the time. And there was no "high Masonic equivalent" for the OTO's VIIIth.}} H:---He did admit him. All this was long after the publication and the confrontation. What's the problem? There's even a published procedure and a different set of fees for such things in a pulled draft of the OTO material in the _Blue Equinox_ -- pulled after the failure of mutual recognition plea by Reuss to the United Grand Lodge of England. That's in the OTO file at the London UGL library. N: Br. Koenig, do you have access to that information?--- K: Yes. of course, 10 years before they received copies from the UGL via Martin Starr! But it does not touch the fact that the IX° is "given" either via fucking another IX° or being simply asked and then given some papers. N:---Do you agree that there is more to the 'reception' of the IXth degree than merely knowing the secrets,--- K: No. N:---but that one would also (in exchange for authority within the Order) be required to accept restrictions on that authority as for its dedication, use, etc.?--- K: Question: does Heidrick suggest that their IX° members (those who have fucked with McMurtry or one of his scarlet women) also are members of regular Freemasonry? N:---[re. "since Papus' days:] What is your understanding in comparison with this, Br. Koenig? Did Papus actually do something different, from your knowledge? H:---A "Patriarch" is the top Bishop in OTO.--- K: Papus never (!) made either Reuss or Crowley a Bishop. The events around Papus will be documented in my forthcoming book.... I do have a complete set of all(!) the original French-Gnostic and OTO magazines and thousands of handwritten manuscripts. N: Br. Heidrick, obviously there is a great deal of difference in regards what OTO initiation conveys. I would like to know if you are aware when these initiations began including bishopric consecration, or if they had this even during the Kellner/Reuss times. H: Reuss, yes. Kellner probably died before the merger. N: Is this also your understanding, Br. Koenig? Thank you for your time. K: Please show me ONE SINGLE proof of that! H:---Abbreviating the facts and saying "it's only that!" does not alter the facts. These are my personal comments. Koenig is unlikely to get anything official from OTO on matters of this kind, even second hand. N: (to K.) Br. Heidrick informs me that he would like you NOT to publish his words which you obtain from our correspondence without his permission. I hope that you can agree to this. Please specify if you cannot. Thanks.

THE OFFICE OF THE CALIPH

N: Where did the term 'Caliph' actually come from, prior to the usage with Hymenaeus Alpha? if in a letter from Crowley, in what context? Did Crowley have a particular meaning in mind? Did he ever explicitly state this if so? [Editorial note: Due to the length of the debate which follows, the relevant sentences of Heidrick's reply are split into paragraphs indicated by arrowheads {{...}}.] H: {{Crowley originated the application of the term to OTO. It is from Islam, being the formal title of the line of authority descended from a lateral line of the relations of Mohammed, after failure of the direct lineal descendants.---}} K: "Caliph" is the term for the 'office' of the prophet. I would like to see an OTO-statute or a clear official OTO statement that connects the term "Caliph" to any office of any OTO. H: This is factually incorrect. "Caliph" has never been used for the "office of the prophet", particularly not in Islam. Koenig knows my answer. The Caliphate is a line of succession to Outer Headship of OTO, devised by Crowley in correspondence, primarily with Grady McMurtry. N: Has the term 'Caliph' ever been or will it be incorporated into any Constutution of the Order? Was there ever anything official created beyond the letters you mention below? H: The term has appeared in various documents after the Greater Feast of Karl Germer, including the minutes of the election of the present OHO. It has appeared in the Bylaws, active form of the Constitution. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: In other words, everything that is post-Germer and McMurtry-only based. It has nothing at all to do _per se_ with the old OTO!}}

CALIPH = HEADSHIP?

H: {{---Crowley explained it to Grady in a few letters, stating that he wished to insure continuation of the headship of OTO by this means.---}} K: I would like to see a facsimile of these documents. N: Are these available to the public or to members in good standing? I would like to receive a copy, and will take the trouble to forward copies of them to Mr. Koenig upon my receipt if he doesn't already have his own. H: Koenig has copies of them. They were published in the old OTO Newsletter and from time to time in the ML and TLC. I sent copies of them to him years ago as well.--- K: ...There is no letter specifically stating, from Crowley to McMurtry: "you are the successor" or "Caliph equals OHO." N: Apparently Br. Koenig does not find these statements within those documents. Br. Heidrick, are you saying that they are to be found but that Br. Koenig has overlooked them? If you could, please provide vol/issue/pg #s wherein these documents were published as mentioned above and I will consult them myself within my library and offer what text I can to support your assertion, since you seem reticent to merely quote them and explicate your interpretation. H:---It's not my fault if he can't find them. However, you are welcome to look through the material here at mutual convenience. I will not send any more paper of this sort to a copyright pirate. N (to K): I may be stopping by to see Br. Heidrick sometime within the next 6 months and will procure copies of these documents at that time if I do not locate them in the publications which he references (which I have here in my library). I will contact you, Br. Koenig, if I think that there is more which you could learn from any documents I so obtain.

THE McMURTRY "SUCCESSION"

H: {{---Crowley told Grady to be ready to assume headship of the OTO in the event of a failure of Karl Germer to either make a success of leadership or to name his own successor.---}} K: I don't think this is accurate. Crowley wrote several letters saying that McMurtry is a Caliph, although Germer is the "Natural Caliph"' (This in one letter.) However, these terms are nowhere defined as 'successor to Crowley.' Crowley always wanted Germer to succeed him, as well as Friedrich Mellinger. Mellinger lived until the 1970's and was a collaborator of Metzger's OTO in Switzerland. H: Koenig has copies of these documents, and I am not responsible for the difficulty he has in understanding them. It is possible that he does not have the letter from Mellinger to the attorney of the widow of Karl Germer, in which Mellinger denounces Metzger and states that Metzger failed to work with him (Mellinger) as Germer directed (published in the TLC Feb. 1993 e.v.) {{APPENDIX, 1997: this letter is published as a facsimile in Koenig: "Materialien zum OTO", ARW, Munich 1994, 143-145.}} K: It doesn't matter whether Mellinger was against Metzger in his later years because Sascha Germer was "for" Metzger and she was the widow of her husband and lived together with him up to his death. Metzger had no contacts with Germer for a decade. N: Br. Koenig, do you suggest that Br. Mellinger's inaction does not constitute an 'emergency' within the Order? K: There was never any "emergency" in the Order. Worldwide there were many very active OTO Lodges. However, as McMurtry did not know of their existence, he thought it a good idea to achieve the Crowley copyrights in order to pay for his beer and other drugs. Mellinger was very active in Europe! N: Br. Heidrick, what sort of Lodge activity are you aware was going on during the period after which McMurtry put into effect his "emergency Caliph" office? H: Actually, the emergency was Germer's death.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: If Germer was so important that his actual demise constituted an emergency, why did McMurtry manage to lose touch with him for seven years? Could the answer possibly be because he (McMurtry) no longer regarded himself as an OTO member because of his treatment by Germer?}} H:---Mellinger's inaction, other than to stop the probate by objection (not legally binding, but Sasha quit anyway), was his washing his hands of the situation. N: Br. Koenig, are you aware that Br. Germer's will contained some sort of designation as to his successor? If so, could you make a copy of that available to me? Thanks. H (to N.): You can have a copy yourself here. Be prepared to spend some time with the papers. We photocopied 20,000 pages (including a lot of quadruplicate, but that's still over 5,000) for the trial. A set is still here in binders. Motta's side got all of that and turned down more. We even photocopied a letter Motta had written to his own attorney in the 1st circuit case where Motta admitted nearly getting caught for perjury in that case -- furnished to us by a disaffected member of Motta's SOTO who had assisted him -- copied to Motta, that is. The judge wouldn't let us enter it in evidence on the basis of attorney client privilege, but Motta volunteered evidence about it anyway. N: Br. Heidrick, you also mentioned Br. Mellinger and the slight ambiguity of succession, if I am not mistaken. I would merely ask what evidence is there is that: 1) Mellinger was not so selected?--- H: He was. He didn't do anything about it. Crowley wrote to Mellinger, telling him to hold himself in readiness to possibly succeed Germer -- same as in Grady's case, except that Grady received additional instructions, duties and did something with it. {{APPENDIX, 1997: Obviously, Heidrick is blind to the fact that Mellinger was very active together with Metzger's OTO.}} N:---and 2) Germer's wife, who outlived him, was not empowered, along with Mellinger, through Germer's will, to appoint her selection (whether this be Crowley, Motta or Metzger or whoever)? H: Germer's widow was never a member of OTO, as she stated in her own journal.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: And yet she also wrote to Motta, "Our Master is dead", where Master could very well be construed as the "Grand Master" within a masonic-type order... Legally, it is absolutely irrelevant whether she was a member of the cat club or the OTO club: her voice has the strongest stand regarding her husband's Will: and she favoured Metzger as the OHO.}} H:---Mellinger had warning that he might have the duty of leading OTO, but he never had documents of authority in that capacity, as far as I know. The Last Will and Testament of Karl Germer made no mention of appointment to head of OTO, but only stated in regard to OTO that Mellinger was to act as co-executor with Sascha Germer in regard to the OTO papers and other articles in the possession of the Germers. Apparently there is nothing else but this. Germer's will did not name a successor or provide any procedure or authority to determine a successor. In fact, that will states that the property of the OTO is to go to the "heads of OTO" -- such usage clearly indicates "the members most in authority", since Germer expelled Grant in part expressly for claiming that there was more than one OHO. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: On what evidence is this based? There is no indication of any such "express" reason in the actual letter Germer sent. (see _Materialien zum OTO_, page 225.)}} N (to K): Br. Koenig, are you aware that Br. Germer's Will contained some sort of designation as to his successor? If so, could you make a copy of that available to me? Thanks. N (to H): I notice that in Br. Koenig's text he claims "Metzger propagated Thelema only to ingratiate himself with Germer."--- H: That's an unlikely theory. Metzger continued very fine Gnostic Masses at his Abbey after the deaths of both the Germers, Karl and Sascha. He maintained a wonderful collection of archives and continued publication of Thelemic material. It's still there under management of his people. Koenig aught to know, since they kicked him out of that too. N: Is this assertion accurate, Br. Metzger? Have you been expelled from the Caliphate OTO (apparently at your request?) and from the Metzger OTO also? Could you explain the reason for these expulsions? Are you or have you ever been a member of any other OTO-related organizations? K: I was never a member of Metzger's OTO and therefore can't have been expelled. Heidrick wrote me, saying he intended to kick me out of his version of the OTO, but since I had already paid money in advance he wanted to know what to do with it. I replied: "do what thou wilt", and Heidrick responded with a funny letter professing astonishment that I wanted to get expelled and that I was therefore no longer a member. I never found out what he did with my money. {{APPENDIX, 1997: regarding Metzger's ingratiation with Germer: this is reported by several wittnesses who heard Metzger expressing such and there are several written documents by Metzger and his allies to the same effect.}} H: Don't you mean "Koenig"? To be fair, he merely dared us to expell him, and we took him up on the dare, having ample grounds.--- N: What were these grounds? K: Heidrick learnt that my researches were going to be published and that it would not(!) turn out to his favour. I had a guest for one week at my home by the name of Andrea Lacedonia Bacuzzi. She was sent over to Europe to install an independent Grand Lodge.--- H: Nonsense. Andrea made arrangements to go to Europe to resume initiations, pursuant to the last OTO document Grady signed on his death bed. She didn't make it in time, but Tony Iannotti did it in her place. Later, she moved to Europe to live with her husband J.Bacuzzi in Lugano. Andrea helped with initiations for a while but retired from involvement for several years. She is more active again, but no longer living with Bacuzzi or using his name. N: I thought you might want to have an alternative view of this, Br. Koenig. K: Re. Andrea Bacuzzi and the planned independent European Grand Lodge: Well, this was the reason why she stayed at my home for a week: it is substantiated by a pile of letters with other European "Caliphate" members and an audiotape of a meeting of the English "Caliphate"-members. I know that the project of an independent European Grand Lodge was planned behind the backs of the American "chiefs" Heidrick and Breeze and when I communicated it, nevertheless, to the "chiefs", Andrea yelled at me that she was now in trouble and has to find a way to get out of it. Andrea "received" her IX° while fucking McMurtry and she reportedly was glad that McMurtry did not die from the act. Later she was Heidrick's lover. Her first husband was expelled because he tried to rape a boy, her second husband chased her out from his home.

Appendix February 1998
by Joe Collins

In June of 1987 e.v. (the 6th I think) Sr. Andrea was the "high-ranking dignitary" at a meeting in the upper rooms of the Bloomsbury Tavern in London. The topic was precisely that of the setting up of a European Grand Lodge. There were a number of representatives from the mainland including Arild Stromsvag from Norway. Gerald Suster and James Barter were also present, as were some Yugoslavians [eg Alenka Bonet]. Andrea behaved in so extraordinary a fashion during her visit that she came very close to being laid out flat by Rose A Starr, but unfortunately D. Rietti talked her down from her very calm "white fury", (few have lived to tell the tale after seeing her eyes turn steely grey!). The event left many of us wondering just what it was we were actually aspiring to here! If Andrea was a good example of the COTO's "right stuff" then we were perhaps wasting our time. It was hard to accept that we were expected to show respect to that prima-donna, who did nothing to earn it. Suster felt that Andrea's position regarding the establishing of a proper Guild System suggested a "New Aeon Mafia" developing in International OTO to generate funds and launder money. Perhaps he had a point. All in all it was a very odd couple of days. I remember it particularly well because I chaired the meeting.

CONT. ONLINE CORRESPONDENCE

K:---She saw some of my archive and yelled at me: "You have to whitewash your study" to the favour of Heidrick's version of history. I even have Heidrick's letter where he wanted to prevent a publication of the above event ('whitewashing story'). Of course I don't whitewash anything, and no one in the world can prevent me from publishing what I know. N: Br. Heidrick, would you make brief comment on the above, especially who A.L.Bacuzzi was, why you ostensibly sent her to Europe, if you did, and what she claims occurred, etc.? H:---When I used the above language in my letter informing him of the expulsion, I got a letter back from him explaining that his English wasn't very good and he didn't mean that! Nice chuckle. {{APPENDIX by Koenig, 1997: This is not true. Heidrick completely distorts facts. It seems that I have to publish the pertinent letters as facsimiles}} H: As to the Swiss, all I know is that they told us they didn't want him back. I don't know if that means they expelled him, but I suspect it does. {{APPENDIX, 1997: K: I can only repeat myself: I never was member of the Metzger group and never intended to become such.}} H: Koenig insisted that we publish notice of his expulsion for a while, but we generally don't do that. Grant's bunch actually has pre-printed expulsion certificates... N (for K):---"Thus Germer considered Metzger as his sole successor, as he wrote in a letter and as was confirmed by Germer's widow." H: This letter doesn't exist, as far as I know. K: I can send you a copy. I have even published it in my 'Materialien Zum OTO'. H: I saw that book, but not this letter.--- N: If you'd like a copy of this I'll ask him to send you one. [to K:] I'd like one myself for my files, Br. Koenig, and append my address to the end of this email (which is cc'd to you). H: I'd be happy to look at it.... N: Br. Koenig, please send me a copy of that letter at your next convenience (along with the highlighted excerpt of the Germer Will showing direct succession) and I will make a copy of it available to Br. Heidrick (my address appended to this document once more). N: My address for Brother Koenig to send copy (highlighted please) of text of the Germer will which expressly dictates succession: nigris (333) Haus Kaos 871 Ironwood Dr. San Jose, CA 95125-2815 H: Thanks, but I won't be sending anything to Peter. If you want a copy of Germer's will, I'll send it to you if you promise not to send it to Peter. N: No thank you. I'll get that bit from him if he chooses to send it. H: Please remind me Wednesday, when I'm back in San Anselmo. I have no objections to your typing a copy and emailing that. It's less than a full page. Peter has it already. N: I know he has it, which is why I say I'd rather leave that to him. It is his claim that I seek to confirm, so his highlighting will be the more imperative. Thanks. H:---Why didn't Metzger produce it, if it did?--- K: Metzger didn't produce it because he had other things to do and only Sascha Germer's transcript and her opinion were produced while quarrelling with Mellinger after Germer's death. H:---It would have settled the whole matter -- assuming it existed and hadn't been withdrawn by subsequent writing. Too late now, of course. N: I'd like your response to these questions, Br. Koenig. Thanks. K: It is never too late, Mr. Heidrick. The copyright decision is only valuable for the 9th Circuit. In every other 'country' one has to rule anew according to the laws of that country -- meanwhile there are more documents around than in 1985.

THE "CALIPHATE" LETTERS

H: {{---To this end, Crowley wrote a series of letters to Grady, giving him various authorities---}}. N: Are you aware of these letters, Br. Koenig? Do you think that Br. Heidrick would lie about them? K: Only as his representative for California and as representative for the US in case Germer did not intervene. Germer had a low opinion of McMurtry, forbade his working along OTO-lines, and closed the Agape Lodge in 1953.--- H: There was never any "forbade his working along OTO-lines" and Agape Lodge simply faded out without final formal closure. N: Do you claim that this is untrue, Br. Koenig? If so, do you have some sort of documentation which directly contradicts it? K: Agape Lodge officially was closed on 7 September 1953. N: Br. Heidrick, do you have any idea what Br. Koenig means by 'officially' here? I gather he thinks there was some formal closure. H: Odd that that isn't in the Lodge records. Where does Peter get this one? N: I'd like to know that also. Br. Koenig, how did you determine that the Agape Lodge officially closed on that date? K: This is an outrageous lie from Heidrick: the pertinent paper from Karl Germer is in the "Caliphate"'s archive, see list of that archive, page 50: "Karl Germer, closes Agape Lodge as Xth degree". Furthermore this fact has been confirmed several times throughout the years by several high ranking "Caliphate" leaders. K:---McMurtry's opening of any Lodge (Agape or not) was done with no authority and can only be considered "the New Foundation of 1977"...I do have these letters, but I would not use the term 'lie' for what Heidrick is doing. He tries to preserve his fantasies built around the founding of a new Agape Lodge which has no magical current. H: Opinion. Stupid opinion, at that. I opposed moving the Grand Lodge from Thelema to Agape, mildly. Agape Lodge has given way in its turn, being now only the US National Grand Lodge. Cheap shot, that bit about "no magical current". {{AFTERWORD, 1997: It wasn't, but even if it was, does that make it necessarily _untrue_!?!}} N: Apparently Br. Koenig does not accept that the letters to which you refer, explain to McMurtry that Crowley wished to insure continuation of the headship of OTO by means of the titular "Caliph" office' and 'that he should be ready to assume headship of the OTO in the event of a failure of Karl Germer to either make a success of leadership or to name his own successor.'--- H: Right. He doesn't comprehend what he reads very well. A professional, notably a IXth Federal Circuit Judge, found no difficulty in understanding the papers. K: ...In his own text he explains "Caliph" as related to the abbreviation to the state (California) in which Agape Lodge was located (a pun). N: I'd like to see these documents myself, please. Weren't they the basis for the 9th Circuit Court's decision? K: Yes, they were, but the [Californian IXth Circuit] court did not know about the rulings of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. H: This is either a lapse or a lie. The 1st Circuit District Court (not the Court of Appeals, Koenig doesn't understand these terms) case was cited frequently in the IXth Circuit Case, including in the Findings, Conclusions of Law and the Judgment. The IXth District Court ruled that the Ist District case was binding on Motta and SOTO, but not on us, since we were not parties in that earlier case. To insure that no remaining question would come from it to the Courts of Appeals, the Judge allowed full testimony on the issues of the Ist District Court anyway. K: Heidrick and Motta made an agreement out of court not to mention Metzger or Grant as possible OHOs because Heidrick and Motta knew that they would lose the case if the court knew about them. (This I have in writing from a witness to the out of court settlement.) N: Did this out of court settlement take place, Br. Heidrick?--- H: No settlements of any kind in that case. Motta fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court did take Metzger and Grant into account. N: Br. Heidrick, you mentioned that you thought Br. Koenig did not understand the 'circuitry' of the court system, or something similar, and I'm unsure myself that I understand either of your contentions in this regard. Could you briefly explain your understanding of what courts ruled in relation to succession issues and how far what they ruled should carry beyond the US, for example? Does it have anything to do with the Geneva Copyrights standards which link US and Europe? N.--Do you think that if Metzger/Grant had been taken into account the court would have ruled in your favour? ... I'd like to get your opinion on this matter and determine with some precision why it is that all of these OTOs are fighting with one another. Pertinent to that is the question of HBeta's lineage and the controversy about 'postal consecration'. I asked Br. Heidrick whether this was accurate and he replied that ... [Editorial note: discussed within section headed "The "Caliphate" E.G.C.", q.v.] H: This never happened, and both Metzger's and Grant's claims were discussed in the trial, as well as provided in the form of documents in the exhibits. I answered questions on the witness stand about Germer's expulsion of Grant. All this is in the official court transcripts.--- N: Have you seen these transcripts, Br. Koenig? Do you say that Br. Heidrick is mistaken about them? Perhaps you can write to the court and procure a copy for your files if you don't already have one. K: These transcripts also show that the lawyers had the opinion that documents had been suppressed (Motta vs. Weiser, 535). N: Br. Heidrick, are you aware of any data to this effect? if not, perhaps Br. Koenig can send me excerpts from the transcripts wherein he finds this suppression-suspicion. H:---Motta and I only exchanged spoken sentences once in our lives. The occasion was during a recess in court. Motta looked over at the plaintiff table, took me for a lawyer (I was in a black suit) and asked if it would be alright if he went to the bathroom. I responded that I thought it would be alright, but that I "regretted" to be one of the plaintiffs against him, not an attorney -- a matter of courteous response to a dumb mistake. Motta responded "Never regret anything". End of conversation. N:---Do you claim that these allegations are false, Br. Heidrick? If so, I'll ask Br. Koenig to substantiate them in some way. I presume you two have had this discussion previously, so if you know something about the items he is likely to bring forward it would seem efficacious if you could say something about them beforehand. H: These allegations are false, in the sense of half-lies.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: But not true, in the sense of half-truths?!!}} H:---Grady did have those authorities, published in the OTO Newsletter in fax. The language went beyond "representative". A subsequent letter removed Germer's power of prior review, but did allow Germer to veto. Germer directed Grady to act on these documents during Crowley's life time, in the matter of Jack Parsons at Agape Lodge. Germer gave Grady a written approval to form a nucleus for a new Lodge in the 1950's and proposed a corporation with Grady as one of the three directors to run OTO. These matters are documented here in photocopy over Germer's signature -- although nothing came of it until long after Germer died. N: I think these comments are substantiated by your own text, Br. Koenig. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Hardly. And didn't Germer also strongly berate McMurtry in a December 1959 letter for "sponging on the order" for the last twelve years"?!!}}

WAS McMURTRY A "NATURAL" CALIPH?

H: {{---Finally, Crowley wrote to Grady with the instruction that Germer was "the natural Caliph", would be A.C.'s direct successor, but that Grady should continue himself in readiness to succeed Germer.---}} N: Since McMurtry did not answer this letter, Crowley subsequently arranged Friedrich Mellinger as the successor to Germer. Is this to what you were referring, Br. Heidrick, in your previous correspondence, when you said: (H): "Crowley also made somewhat lesser efforts to alert Frederic Mellinger to the possible need of taking headship of OTO, but did not give Mellinger any formal letters of authority."?--- H: Koenig is wrong in stating that Grady did not answer the letter in question. There were several such letters, and Grady continued correspondence with Crowley until shortly before the latter's death. The reference to a similar letter to Mellinger is the one I made. However, Crowley continued to remind Grady of this plan for Grady's succession after the similar correspondence with Mellinger. Mellinger was a back up. As things turned out, Mellinger did nothing in this regard. N: Br. Koenig, from reading your text and that of Br. Heidrick, it does seem somewhat clear that Crowley was attempting to establish a 'fall-back' chain, should those immediately in line not be capable or willing to assume OHO do so in proper timing. Do you dispute this?--- K: Germer knew of all the other active OTO Lodges and McMurtry appeared on the scene 20(!) years after Crowley's death. In these 20 years there were many OTO Lodges active. N: Br. Heidrick, are you aware of the active Lodges of which Br. Koenig speaks? Were these something other than 'Crowleyan' lineages (perhaps something which the Caliphate disputes?)? N:---Given that he had Mellinger/ McMurtry in mind and that Mellinger did not activate his authority, does this not constitute an 'emergency situation', given which McMurtry was in his rights to resume OTO as OHO? [Editorial note: see earlier section, "The McMurtry Succession".] N:---If so, and there is such a letter of authority, or some recorded process of succession, would this substantiate Br. Koenig's claim? He would merely have to justify his basis for his claim that it was so "arranged", true? H: It's irrelevant to Koenig's claim, since Mellinger did nothing. If Frederic Mellinger had come forward and sought to activate his letters, there would have been some sort of discussion as to which should succeed. As he did not, there was not. As long as Mellinger lived, the point could have been pressed. Mellinger died before Grady, still doing nothing about it. In fact, Frederic knew of Germer's death well before Grady was informed. He had his opportunity unopposed. He chose to forget about it. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: To strike while opportunity knocks? Is this the reasoning behind the tactics of the "Caliphate"? That - whether right or wrong - one must seize the moment or else lose it forever? And why does Heidrick know what's going on in other people's mind, eg Mellinger?}}

CROWLEY'S USE OF "CALIPH": A PUN OR NOT A PUN?

H: {{---This latter characterization of Germer as "Natural Caliph" is different from the Islamic, indirect line, usage. I've long thought that Crowley also had a pun on California in mind...}} H: ... Calif = abbreviation of California. Caliph = Englishing of an Islamic word roughly equivalent to "Follower" or "One who comes after", specifically the lateral line of descendents in that case of the sister of Mohammed. I entertain the conceit that Crowley also may have seen the pun, but there is no evidence of that and ample evidence of the construction I support. Although I am not sure that I told this pun to Koenig, I think I may have.--- {{APPENDIX, 1997: Is Heidrick the mother of all jokes?}} N: Br. Koenig, don't you think that the usage of 'Caliph' as compared to 'Calif' indicates that it was more than just a pun, given the Muslim understanding of this term? K: Of course this might have been the case, but even if Crowley intended to use the term "Caliph" in its original meaning of "follower of the prophet", it has nothing to do with the OTO, which has no prophet, which is a pseudo-freemasonic order. It is Thelema which seems to need a prophet. "Caliph" can only be seen in the context of Thelema, but Thelema must be seen as separate from the OTO. It was only the breakaway group under Crowley that adopted Thelema. Reuss got rid of it all in November 1921 and wanted other successors than Crowley. N: Given that Reuss wanted to dispense with Crowley (what is your position on this assertion, Br. Heidrick?), and that Br. Koenig's claim that Crowley's lineage was a 'breakaway group' is accurate, doesn't it seem logical to you that this business about 'caliphs' would remain in contention? H: Even if the Crowley lineage of OTO was break-away, which I do not consider to be correct in any sense, that would have no effect on the succession within Crowley's line of OTO itself, including the term "Caliph". N: Isn't this true, Br. Koenig? It is something which I didn't understand of your mention previously. There appear to be several issues here which you have at times brought together as multi-pointed spears against the Caliphate OTO (as to its legitimacy in regards the EGC, the OTO, and even to its own succession). Do you have some reason for this composite, or are you simply opposed to the existence of the Caliphate OTO on all those grounds and sought to make this clear? K: There are several kinds of level to discuss the OTO-Phenomenon: regarding the term OTO: a) it is uncertain that Reuss continued the OTO according Kellner's line, b) it is most certain that Crowley's OTO is a breakaway group from Reuss' OTO (because Reuss wanted to separate the OTO from Thelema), and c) the "Caliphate" is a new founding. Therefore it is of no use (or simply manipulative) to speak from "the OTO" while there are only several OTO-groups. H:---You may see these documents in fax or photocopy -- let me know when you can come by and we will arrange a mutual convenience. There is a photocopier here. K: In his own text he explains "Caliph" as related to the abbreviation to the state (California) in which Agape Lodge was located (a pun). N: I'd like to see these documents myself, please. Weren't they the basis for the 9th Circuit Court's decision? K: Yes, they were, but the [Californian IXth Circuit] court did not know about the rulings of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. [Editorial note: see discussion in "The "Caliphate" Letters" for continuation.]

EPILOGUE

N: ...To other matters more severe: I am seriously considering reviewing Br. Koenig's texts, to be found at the following URLs, within the Thelema93-L elist as an alternative and/or precursor to the King material or the alternate which you and I devise: Spermo-Gnostics and the Ordo Templi Orientis Ecstatic Creation of Culture I'd like to hear how you think this would compare in regards my marring of my relationship with the Caliphate OTO should I omit direct quotes of King's work while doing a review of the ideas and text of Koenig's text here listed. Are his texts (however fallacious they may seem to you) also 'forbidden'? :> I *do* find within them a very clear similarity to the VII/VIII/IX° secrets as stated within the King Secret Rites. He has offered to send me copies of the Crowley rites he mentioned which you said are not 'in formal completion' (something similar). I may eventually take him up on that, though I'd like to know if I'd be in effect severing my connection with the Caliphate OTO in so doing. Thank you for your reflections and advice my kin, nigris (333) H: ...As before, this is all my personal talk without prejudice to OTO. [Most omitted in this sending by nigris.] I'm intending to tail off this discussion now with only a few minor points which I also have interest in pursuing. K: ...Thank you for your time. I am always prepared to answer further questions sincerely.

- POSTSCRIPT -

K: Are you aware that Heidrick is even now trying to copyright the AA? (Heidrick on Compuserve 13-Jul-1985) N: No I am not, though it doesn't surprise me much. You must either mean he is trying to obtain trademarks on "AA" or that he is copyrighting AA materials. K: Both. N: He is also attempting to dissuade me from reviewing portions of King's text. I may jump around him and my Order by reviewing *your" text instead, since it seems to present similar information in a more extensive light. If people want to argue against it I'll be happy to see that. The discussion is my objective. I don't care at all about the copyrights and trademarks, nor lately about my membership, though I do my best to retain it for as long as possible within my will. K: Please ask about that new X° business with the X° of America, called "Sabazius X°". Breeze recently made a X° for the US, called Sabazius. Traditonally, a X° can only be made by the OHO. But neither McMurtry was, nor Breeze is, OHO.--- N: It does appear that the identity of "OHO" is in contention, yes. K:---It is the man who wrote an outrageous false OTO history at http://www.cinenet.net/oto/ N: Would you like to review that history with your commentary? I would be happy to edit it in English and have you review before issuing it to the world. {{APPENDIX, 1997: This led to the correspondence with Scriven/Sabazius, at this URL.}} ... K: Did you, last year, post some Heidrick-fantasies to the Internet? Yesterday I found a letter from Ken Ward from the newsgroup alt.magick,tyagi... and two Heidrick-answers re Martinism (Martin E. Jacobs) and Rosicrucians (Cynthia Sheldon). It is unbelievable how Heidrick can distort the facts. N: As I am very ignorant about these subjects I have at times I'm sure been blinded by the Heidrick-fantasies as you call them, and this is one of the reasons that I value my correspondence with you. I have posted Br. Heidrick's text to various forums, yes, hoping to elicit ALTERNATIVE perspectives and occasionally doing so, but nothing which compares to your complex alternatives. K: For example, Krumm-Heller NEVER founded the OTOA which was founded by Jean-Maine (an alleged X° made by Papus). The gnostic and sexmagickal systems of the OTOA and Krumm-Heller's FRA/OTO are COMPLETELY different. But Heidrick can't understand anything that is outside of his small limits. N: I will quote this to Br. Heidrick and ask him why he might have said these things, seeing what he says about your assertions. ..You can find most of them, which I've archived, at: ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Thelema/ Is there a way for you to view these? There are many files there, and all which end in ".bh" are written by Brother Heidrick ... K: What about the spicy communication between you, Heidrick and me? N: I'm archiving that in Usenet archives (/Usenet/Thelema). I will probably either archive it or delete it. I don't see that there is any resolution betwixt you possible. Perhaps I'll put it in the Hollyfeld archive. K: Why do you want resolution? But Hollyfeld archive is fine, as well. N: I didn't want to expend unlimited energy on it, feel I have delved into the subject as much as I can handle presently ("history" isn't something which I really like very much -- that can be "your" ball of wax), and I would rather focus on the "esoteric secrets". ... N: I have erased everything below [sic] this line and not looked at it. K: How strange but wonderful! Here's the solution (that you can send to everyone that has an ear): The "Caliphate" accepts Germer's stance as OHO although they consider his performances are doubtful. (Which in my eyes, makes their acceptance only lipsync). N: I'm not sure what you mean by "his performances are doubtful". It is somewhat awkward to my English-only ear and perhaps a tad ambiguous. Performances of what? How does this have any effect on anything? K: Why is McMurtry not considered automatically expelled (Liber CI;25) when he filed suit against Motta?: the "Caliphate" thinks it was not a suit between members but between two different OTO-versions. N: Very lovely! K: Heidrick's statement that Crowley broke up the 1917 Constitution into three commented libers is not met with other high ranking members. They now call their "Caliphate" not the "real" OTO but a _"reconstitution" of OTO_. N: First I've heard of this. Thanks. K: There is the gossip/oral tradition in the "Caliphate" that IXth members have the right to initiate although this is not substantiated by any paper neither from Reuss nor Crowley. McMurtry then indicated on his IX° charters (those he issued) that his IX°-initiated "members" were not to exercise their powers until after his death. N: That fits with some things I've seen in the past in my local community. There do appear to be conservative changes going on there. K: There are NO members of the Solar Lodge now members of the "Caliphate". It is approven that there exists NO VII°-IX° paper/instruction that includes bishopric. N: This is meaningless to me. What is "the Solar Lodge"? Do you mean that there are no "proven" lineage continuation that you accept to VI° members? K: I am looking forward to hearing again from you - especially about your thoughts and comments on all the stuff that I have sent you and the info that you have by now... N: I'm now (as I hope you are seeing) beginning a sex-magick critique within Thelema93-L and funnelling this out to Usenet as I so desire. This will include occasional reference to the Emblems [and Modes of Use] text, "De Arte Magica" and some of F. King's materials. I am not presently interested in a wrangle with the COTO as regards copyrights and so am going to concentrate on rephrased or "non-threatening" materials I create myself or find in writers such as you or Kenneth Grant. Your commentary on any/all of it will be welcome. ... K: You are free to use every part of my letters in any way you want! N: That is very kind of you. My objectives include a full disclosure of all OTO "secrets" and sex magick information such that public discussion may proceed from it and people may obtain this sexo-technology easily and use it for their benefit. K: ...My main objective is to document EVERYTHING that happens in the OTO (groups); this includes documentation of all secrets (no pun). N: Great, then we have a common bond. N: I understand. Your role is important in opposition to the lies. Please understand that I have *two* roles where the Order is concerned: 1) As Revolutionary member from within (as long as I can stomach sticking within it) 2) As neutral librarian collecting data from a variety of sources which express themselves in Thelema93-L and Usenet conversations in a manner clearly reflecting their opinions (no matter how false these may be). K:---b) I have to express my astonishment about the fact that Heidrick is telling such outrageous lies and manipuative propaganda to the world.... N: Nothing new, from what you've been telling me. K: It reminds me definitely of the Scientology. N: I've been involved with Scientology, and later COTO, and I haven't noticed yet the similarity between them other than some organizational things (structure, but both drew from similar sources) and an occasional promotion of their "Official Views" (which again many religious organizations engage). I'm watching for signs of the type of cult-activity I saw in Scientology. Haven't seen it yet. ... K: The IX° is a parody of the Christian Eucharist with further refinements of the techniques related to the consumption of the Elixir: absorption through the mucous membrane of the roof of the mouth, rather than swallowing it. Because the delicate protein fabric enveloping the essence will get broken down by the acids of the digestive system before it had a chance to integrate into the mind-body symbiosis. Therefore it is a "danger" to put the elixir into brandy (as I described the practise of some "Caliphate" members in my "Spermo-gnostics and the OTO"-lecture on my Web site). Also it needs to be prevented from coming into external contacts. Grant also notices: "The sacrament should be passed forth from mouth to mouth." Finally, the ritual must be performed by both sun (male's winged flame) and moon (female starlight) always unto Nuit, sometimes assuming the Godforms in the Stele. That's all. If you need the elixir for magickal acts: let drop the sperm and vaginal fluids out of the vagina upon a par chment with the Abramelin squares and the "wish" will be fulfilled. N: I'll be quoting the text above in Thelema93-L sometime in the near future. K: In NO IX° paper is something mentioned like a bishopric consecration. There is no need for such because when it is assumed that the sperm contains the Holy Logos then every man and woman who eats that sperm receives the Holy Logos. Even if Heidrick disguises the lack of bishopric (referring to oaths and nonsense like that) in any IX° paper: there is no such. To "receive" the IX° (be "recognized" as a such) you only have to know the alchemistical and hinduistic word shells for the words "Vagina", "Penis", "sperm", "orgasm" etc etc (best is to take over Crowley's new defined euphemisms for these: and this (besides the financial aspect) is the ONLY reason why you have to run through the lower degrees of the OTO) and know how to describe the whole act in bloomy and pompous words. That's definitely ALL about the IX°. After that you have to regularly pay the fees and you can really feel "elected: and "chosen". According to the new invented statutes and constitutions of the "Caliphate", the IX° of McMurtry's days (not the Breeze IX°) can vote something called OHO -- although in the original OTO only the X° can elect the OHO. It is clearly defined what a X* is in Liber CXCIV paragraph 17 - but only until recently the "Caliphate" also starts to accept other definitions. Although Heidrick does NEVER admit it, the "Caliphate" recognises Metzger's standing as X° for Switzerland and the leaders of the COTO (without Heidrick) recently paid a visit to Metzger's heir in order to have her (it is a woman) help to elect an OHO. In vain, of course ==> There is no OHO, only several self-styled IX° and X° in several countries all over the world. To have an OHO ALL these X° must unanimously elect the OHO. N: Thanks for the info. I'm unsure if I'll use it this time, though I may archive this batch of information. K: What do you think about my "proto-fascistoid elements" draft that I sent you earlier? N: I like the attitude you were taking with it. I think that it was a helpful goad within the recent discussion within the Thelema93-L list with T. Maroney concerning the dwindling of the current in public discussion and the general atmosphere of "Thelemic culture". I'd suggest that you elaborate some with examples of some of your claims, polish up the English if you want it to be taken seriously by those of the "serious Thelemite community", and issue it within one of your publications or those of Thelemic organizations at your disposal. K: It reminds me of Heidrick's letter to you dated 9 Dec 1995. N: The element which you are underscoring is definitely there, though I'm not sure how strong it is within my Order as yet. "Fascist" usually implies some sort of politics, and the only politics of which I am aware which COTO members *must* engage is that concerning rituals, how they are performed, whether and with whom they are discussed. Since I don't find such discussion valuable (since I have often not wanted to hear about the rites before going to them and seldom if ever wanted to be one of the people putting them together), I doubt I'll hit as hard on this line as you seem to be doing, perhaps merely collecting ritual texts relating to the "secret sex magick workings". K: Hoping to hear from you again. N: It is a pleasure as always, Br. Koenig.

- END OF DOCUMENT -

sitemap advanced
Search the O.T.O. Phenomenon Website


The 'Caliphate'
Playgame of an O.T.O.-Fata Morgana, Statistics, Censorship, Name Dropping
Fetish, Self-Induction, Stigma and Rôleplay
The Gnostic Churches
The McMurtry Succession
The Templar's Reich - The Slaves Shall Serve
Proto-fascist Elements in the O.T.O.

More about all this in: Andreas Huettl and Peter-R. Koenig: Satan - Jünger, Jäger und Justiz

O.T.O. Phenomenon   navigation page   |    main page    |    mail

 

       Reuss' Memphis Misraim Emblem

one of Reuss' O.T.O. seals


Click here to go back to where you came from or use this Java Navigation Bar:

Memphis Misraim Carl Kellner Spermo-Gnostics The Early Years O.T.O. Rituals Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua Fraternitas Saturni Typhonian O.T.O. 'Caliphate' Pictures RealAudio and MP3 David Bowie Self Portrait Books on O.T.O. Deutsche Beiträge Charles Manson Illuminati